Jump to content

 

 

calscot

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,722

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by calscot

  1. calscot
    I'm a Rangers fan, while I think you are a Chelsea fan. Therefore, you will know far more about the league Chelsea play in than I do as I'm just not interested and never have been. I've always thought that Scots being supportive of the English clubs was detrimental to the Scottish game and so it has been shown, with derisory money from Sky for the live screenings, as they already have more than enough Scots paying without showing it. I really don't think you have to know about every signing in other countries to know about the sport. I'm sure you don't know them all in say Brazil but wouldn't think that would diminish your general knowledge of the sport. You may only have one thing you're interested in but I have many and I'm not going to obsess with every minutiae of one sport. In fact, there are many people who would find that a bit sad - not because someone does it, but the fact that a person might think it makes them somehow feel more important than someone who doesn't.
  2. calscot
    No, there are a lot more just judging by the "agree" button. But I don't expect people to agree with me all the time and don't try and build that kind of cocoon like yourself where you cultivate a wee group that have the same point of view about everything and are nicey, nicey to each other while being aggressive to those that have see things differently. I don't go for the simple, superficial opinions as I look and think a bit deeper than that, which is why I can "write a million words" as your favourite poster points out. I expect people to disagree with me because of that, and I'm very comfortable with it. I hope that either they can convince me that they have a more accurate picture and I will change my view to suit, or that they will see that mine is better and adjust their own mind. I always welcome a better analysis than mine as I adopt it and obviously that makes mine better. I don't see the point of making up an opinion from nowhere then defending it aggressively while twisting the world to fit. Maybe best for you as it means the flaws in your staunch views would remain unchallenged which is something you seem incredibly uncomfortable with. However, I've been on here for about a decade or more, had some great debates and even won a few forum awards in my time, I think I might just stick around.
  3. calscot
    I was talking about your own critera of being under 22 and not signing youngsters when they are 21 - for which I presume 20 is also a no-no given where you were going with it. You didn't quote me so I didn't know exactly what you were referring to. But hey I'm fine with that and have no problem switching to what I now know you were getting at. However, my replies still hold water as like I said, it's easy to look at a load of teams and you will eventually find the unusual. BUT Liverpool are unusual in another way that makes comparing them with Rangers like doing so with platinum and silver. A loan form Atletico, plus three "super kids" for over £30m that they didn't develop and one that cost 600k when he was 16 and developed by QPR isn't really what we can do ourselves. It just correlates with my opinion that the kids thing is a numbers game where top clubs need to cherry pick the best around. Liverpool aren't playing 5 youngsters from their ranks in the vague hope they will "develop" due to playing in a highly competitive league, while they try to do something in the EPL, they are playing some of the top young players in the world that have made a huge impression already elsewhere, out of thousands developed everywhere, and have paid handsomely for them. The nearest we've done to that recently is to sign Templeton and Wallace, unless you count Clark and Faure on frees. But again that shows that the difference of Liverpool and us is not in the development strategy at all, it's just in the amount of money available to spend. I would still be surprised if those five start most of the games as I still believe it's best with a mix of ages from 18 to 33 and occasionally beyond. There will be one or two other teams who play more U23s, but to go back to the beginning, Rangers played four for the game in question plus three subs and you find that worthy of criticism. I don't see any consistency when you give examples of other sides.
  4. calscot
    I liked Weiss, he was one of the most entertaining players we had for ages, BUT consistent with my opinion, his attempts at entertainment were often counter-productive to the result and you often just wanted him to keep with the tactics, and use his trickery as a surprise now and again. Do it all the time and you become predictable. This was especially noticeable in big games and Europe. Obviously Walter didn't like that he didn't follow instructions and stopped playing him very often, which annoyed Man City as he wasn't getting the experience they intended. I do find loans a bit of a strange thing in that way. Our youngsters are going out on loan and if they play it will be to the detriment of the loan club's own youngsters. I think the best use of the system is if you need players above what you can afford normally on a short term basis due to your situation and cash flow - something we could have done in the lower leagues, or if you want to try before you buy.
  5. calscot
    How can I get you banned? It's a waste of time for you as you don't have a decent argument. Could you try to be a bit more arrogant, supercilious and narrow minded...? If that were the case you'd be able to trounce me in a debate but you have no answer and resort to insults incredibly quickly every time - and not just with me. Everyone who disagrees with you is in your opinion, "speaking nonsense" or "illogical" or "tedious" etc, etc, etc. Man up, when you have something decent to say you will be able to explain it. Ah, here we go, your last gasp effort, your favourite made up ad hominem... All you are saying is, that you are not able to explain nor defend your opinions.
  6. calscot
    You provided some pretty poor examples as I've shown and they don't generally even meet your own criteria. Which Jesus did Liverpool sign? I think that was Man City.
  7. calscot
    Now here is a good example of trolling. If you have something to say, say it, don't troll.
  8. calscot
    For completeness, Sterling sigined a couple of years ago at 16 for 600k from QPR.
  9. calscot
    Just looked up Moreno, signed this season at 22 years old for £12m... Markovic was signed this season at 20 and £20m. Manquillo signed this season on a two year loan from Atletico and is 20. I'm sure if we could afford these players, they would be playing every week.
  10. calscot
    How come 22 years old counted at Liverpool? Coutinho joined Liverpool aged 20 I think - for £8.5m!
  11. calscot
    No the point is if you introduce a policy of say 6 U22's in every line-up, it means that firstly you have to get rid of about 3/4 of your first team squad *because of their age and not their ability* and then more than half the players that turn 22 have to be let go *because of their age and not their ability*. I can't see how people think it's ok to put a load of people out of a job because they are over a certain age and replace them with kids because you can pay them less. Imagine they did that at your work...
  12. calscot
    Looked up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Liverpool_F.C._season Might have it wrong but can only find two of them in the appearance list - Coutinho and Sterling. No. Pos. Nat. Name Premier League FA Cup League Cup Total Apps Apps Apps Apps 1 GK AUS Brad Jones 0 3 0 3 2 DF ENG Glen Johnson 29 0 1 30 3 DF ESP José Enrique 6 (2) 0 1 7 (2) 4 DF CIV Kolo Touré 15 (5) 2 2 19 (5) 5 DF DEN Daniel Agger 17 (4) 2 0 (1) 19 (5) 6 MF ESP Luis Alberto 0 (9) 1 (1) 1 2 (10) 7 FW URU Luis Suárez 33 2 (1) 1 36 (1) 8 MF ENG Steven Gerrard 33 (1) 3 2 38 (1) 9 FW ESP Iago Aspas 5 (9) 1 0 6 (9) 10 MF BRA Philippe Coutinho 28 (5) 2 (1) 0 (1) 30 (7) 12 MF NGA Victor Moses 6 (13) 2 1 9 (13) 14 MF ENG Jordan Henderson 35 2 (1) 1 (1) 38 (2) 15 FW ENG Daniel Sturridge 26 (3) 2 2 30 (3) 17 DF FRA Mamadou Sakho 17 (1) 0 1 18 (1) 20 DF FRA Aly Cissokho 12 (3) 3 1 16 (3) 21 MF BRA Lucas Leiva 20 (7) 0 (1) 1 21 (8) 22 GK BEL Simon Mignolet 38 0 2 40 24 MF WAL Joe Allen 15 (9) 1 1 17 (9) 31 MF ENG Raheem Sterling 24 (9) 2 (1) 1 (1) 27 (11) 33 MF ENG Jordon Ibe 0 (1) 0 1 1 (1) 34 DF ENG Martin Kelly 0 (5) 2 0 (1) 2 (6) 37 DF SVK Martin Škrtel 36 2 1 39 38 DF ENG Jon Flanagan 23 1 (1) 0 24 (1) 44 DF ENG Brad Smith 0 (1) 0 0 0 (1) 47 DF ENG Andre Wisdom 1 (1) 0 1 2 (1) 53 MF POR João Carlos Teixeira 0 (1) 0 0 0 (1) U23s that Rangers played regularly were Faure, Aird, McLeod and Clark and Crawford a bit too. Looks like Rangers win... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Rangers_F.C._season Pos Name Nat League Scottish Cup League Cup Challenge Cup Total Discipline Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals GK Cammy Bell 31 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 39 0 0 0 GK Scott Gallacher 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 GK Steve Simonsen 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 DF Emílson Cribari 4 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 (3) 0 1 0 DF Sébastien Faure 22 (4) 0 2 (2) 0 1 0 2 (2) 0 27 (8) 0 2 0 DF Ricky Foster 19 (4) 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 26 (4) 0 5 0 DF Luca Gasparotto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF Chris Hegarty 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 DF Kyle McAusland 3 (1) 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 1 (1) 0 4 (3) 0 0 0 DF Bilel Mohsni 28 10 6 1 0 0 3 1 37 12 12 1 DF Ross Perry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF Steven Smith 11 (2) 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 14 (2) 3 2 0 DF Lee Wallace 28 3 5 0 1 0 5 0 39 3 1 0 MF Fraser Aird 22 (5) 5 4 (2) 1 0 (1) 1 1 (2) 0 27 (10) 7 1 0 MF Ian Black 32 2 5 0 1 0 4 1 42 3 14 0 MF Robbie Crawford 6 (14) 2 0 (1) 0 1 0 3 0 10 (15) 2 0 0 MF Kyle Hutton 2 (8) 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 (8) 0 1 0 MF Nicky Law 32 9 6 1 0 0 4 2 42 12 3 0 MF Lewis Macleod 16 (2) 5 2 0 1 0 3 0 22 (2) 5 1 0 MF Andrew Mitchell 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 MF Andy Murdoch 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 MF Arnold Peralta 17 (3) 1 3 (1) 0 0 0 2 0 22 (4) 1 5 1 MF Dean Shiels 13 (5) 8 4 3 0 0 1 0 18 (5) 11 1 0 MF Charlie Telfer 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 MF David Templeton 9 (11) 3 2 (2) 3 1 0 1 (3) 1 13 (16) 7 3 0 FW Nicky Clark 14 (10) 9 2 (2) 0 0 0 1 (2) 0 17 (14) 9 1 0 FW Jon Daly 34 20 6 3 0 0 4 2 44 25 3 0 FW Calum Gallagher 1 (3) 1 1 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 2 (4) 1 0 0 FW Andrew Little 13 (8) 5 0 (3) 0 1 0 3 (1) 1 17 (12) 6 1 0 FW Lee McCulloch 34 17 6 0 1 0 5 1 46 18 8 0 But then it's not really that simple. You can trawl around all the leagues and find a team who play more - but they are not just playing these guys to magically turn them into good players, it usually means that they have found enough guys that are good enough and therefore old enough. It happens more some years and less others for all clubs. That's why Man U don't do it every year, or even every generation. It's about playing young players who are talented not "making" talented young players just by playing them. Remember, it's simple to look around 100s of clubs and find one at this moment that Rangers will compare in a way that you see as poor. It's an easy numbers game.
  13. calscot
    You think there are NO similarities of youth development between sports? But show me where football defines who is a "youth" players. Exactly what age is it? I'm getting on a bit and see most people in their 20's as 'kids'. Not picking people just because of their age is ageism - it's pretty simple logic... You know, not many companies get good PR for saving money by laying off experienced, older employees and then bring in a load of young people on cheap wages... And it sounds like a recipe for failure. There is a reason it doesn't happen in successful organisations. I count 17 youth players played two seasons ago and about 10 last season. That doesn't sound like "hardly any". I find it strange that you think that just by playing young players in a team means they will be immediately the best in the lower leagues, easily winning the titles against experienced, older pros and their peers alike, and become the best in the country by the time they are 22... It sounds far too simple. That they will also automatically be worth a lot of money is a stretch and defies the logic that players are worth money because you can't just throw any kid into the team and expect the same quality. If that was the case then no-one would buy players, there would be no need. They just need to do what you suggest. But if it WERE the case then the likes ANY team in Scotland that do this would be in the Champions League qualifiers and selling their players for millions - but they are not and can't even compete with us. Thing is, you keep saying that there are loads of teams in Scotland that do that more than us, in fact you say we are the worst and yet we keep winning the league easily. I would say that shows there is something seriously wrong with your logic. Like I keep saying, if every team does it, who wins? I think it's a bit more complicate than just playing them. So you're saying you're a troll? Now I see, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll eh, but not you? Not very logical and very tedious.
  14. calscot
    Teams getting beat by cheaper teams? Does that mean the managers of Real and Chelsea are clueless? I can't see how you can just go out and emulate a giant killing club. I doubt there is a model to follow as obviously it's a combination of factors coming together that are pretty unique - not least some exceptional staff - like Fergie with St Mirren and Aberdeen - why are they not continuing the same model? Logically, if there is an obvious system to follow, then everyone would start to copy it and then who wins? Successful football and other tactical sports where you punch above your weight, is logically NOT about doing the obvious or the same as someone else, it's about being DIFFERENT in a way that gives you an advantage in the current state of the game. I agree it's good to look around and see what's working elsewhere and see what you can take from it, but I don't think you can just find a formula to copy.
  15. calscot
    In a lot of sports, "young" usually refers to under 26, eg the Tour de France has a white jersey competition for the best "young" rider of those under 26. Fudging the semantics and focusing on only the starting aspect to skew your statistics wouldn't go down well with Mark Twain. In any case, starting two youths for a club like Rangers is pretty reasonable. A starting line up of four under 23's is unusual and any more would be generally very risky and starting to get into ageism territory. Bringing three on a subs seems very good too. Playing 7 under 23's on the day is way above average for a team with ambitions of winning a league with a fair bit to spare. But it all gets really illogical as if you expect every team to start a load of "youths" (say five?), what happens to those players when they reach 22? To keep this going, they HAVE to be put on the scrapheap and replaced with younger guys. With that logic there is not enough starting places for the young players to take up when they get older - if you have 5 starting places for 18-21 then you have only 6 for 22-33 for which there are obviously three times as many players. The numbers just don't work. I've explained this before but you seem to keep repeating the same illogical stuff.
  16. calscot
    The trouble with the drip feeding is that it doesn't seem sensational enough to warrant it. It just waters down the impact. I'm struggling to remember each revelation and so can't put them altogether in my mind. If they came at once, or even every day for a week, then the impact would have been greater for me and I'd know what they are on about. At the moment, it's like hearing a joke in sections over time and so I don't quite get the punchline.
  17. calscot
    From what I've read about Newcastle, this would be their gain and our loss. He boasts about turning them into a profit making company, but that seems to be because he's used them to make money for himself and not spending much on the team, making them much less competitive than their size. For me I think football clubs should be more community companies that try to break even or make a small profit and reinvest that in infrastructure. What gets me is why someone super rich like Ashley, still sees the need to squeeze every pound out of this kind of venture. Surely life is about raising money in part of it and spending some of it in another part? That's why we really need a super rich fan if we're going to have that kind of ownership. You want someone who can afford to lose a few million and enough to invest 50m (but hopefully not lose it as it will still be there in equity). But you also want them not to see it as a money making exercise. You want it to be like us, if we were rich - a hobby and labour of love, where the goal is to get the club to be as successful as possible, without losing your shirt. We all have hobbies where we give our time and money - you're average golfer can spend several thousands every year on green fees and lessons, as well as 20 hours a week of their time. All that just to make them reasonably successful in the club competitions. The same goes for many expensive hobbies - like classic cars/bikes, amateur motor racing etc. I've recently bought an expensive guitar, just about to buy a top of the range Marshall amp, and just starting to pay for lessons to take me to the next level, but I'm not going to go busking to try and make them pay for themselves. I want it where you scale up that kind of cost and time to someone super rich, where they not only enjoy their expensive hobby, but they get a lot of perks from it too - they're already rich, so why not add fame and celebrity? Surely swanning around the Scottish football scene, with the odd sojourn into Europe, in hospitality suites and directors boxes, mixing with top footballers and plenty of celebrity hangers on, is far more glamorous and enjoyable than your average corporate strategy meeting? The likes of David Murray also used it to increase his business by having such a famous public profile, and flying people in his private jet to then be treated like a VIP at Ibrox must have been seductive for many potential business partners. He also used it to make money for his own businesses - something I wouldn't really mind as long as the club get value for money. If we any of us were worth a few hundred million pounds, then I'm sure most would do this - after all what else do you spend that kind of money on? You can't really spend it, so what reward do you have except your fortune as some kind of score? I think for the likes of King, this is more relevant due to his age. He's due for retirement - surely once you are that rich you start looking for something a bit more fun to spend your remaining active years with? Besides, when you're getting into your twilight years, you start wanting to leave some kind of legacy to be remembered by, and just making a load of money and beating the SA tax authorities at their own game, isn't exactly a great epitaph. That gets even worse when you consider the false promises he's made if he doesn't do anything... He won't be popular. It's either that or maybe some other high profile philanthropy. But if not King, then surely there is some other super rich Rangers fan who wants to save the club and make it successful without skimming it? Or are we the only big club without one? We're not talking about Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour type levels of throwing money around. Just saving the club and competing with Celtic. Small potatoes when you consider how much an EPL club costs these days. Even Ashley is selling NU for £230m - how did become a poundland purchase compared to them?
  18. calscot
    Eh, where is even the slightest similarity? I haven't made personal comments, or if I have, where is your rebuke of the person I replied to, as I just turned his own post on to himself? I was merely alluding to the irony of someone having a go at someone else for something I think he's guilty of himself. He also wants to curtail debate from that poster because he has a different opinion...
  19. calscot
    Ha ha. Then just stop it!
  20. calscot

    Untitled Rant

    calscot replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat

    To me it seems that there is enough of a technicality for them to have an excuse to treat us differently. However, I think it's obvious that if it was Hibs instead of us that had a parent company liquidated, the response would not have been the same. I would guess they would have possibly had a punishment of something like relegation of one division, given a 10 point penalty and forced to pay football debts and maybe a few other sanctions such as player signing limitations. Kicking them out the whole league system and having to re-apply, withholding prize money, illegal transfer bans and stripping of honours and history would not have been on the agenda.
  21. calscot
    I find it all very strange seeing as if he wins, he's promised to give the money back to the club...
  22. calscot
    I've always said that the transition seasons of getting to the top would need to be done at a loss and that loss recovered by share issues that then return their value when we're back at the top. There was no way we could cut our cloth to the leagues and both keep the fans onside as well as guaranteeing instant promotions. You can already see how Hibs are struggling badly to compete given a similar, if nowhere near as severe, situation. The challenge was to limit the losses by keeping the costs moderate and value for money, while increasing income as much as possible. This could have been achieved to some extent had it been the pure goals of those who took over the club. However, their goals seem to have been to syphon off as much money as possible while deflecting this fact by unnecessary spending. It's a double whammy that has put the club in a grave position. When you look at our pre-admin turnover of over £40m without European money, the fact that our income fell to about 19m, the majority of which was ticket sales, you really have to wonder what makes up the difference. Then with spending at 36m with only about 9m on the first team and management, you have to wonder where it goes. The board having a dissonant agenda to the needs of the club has eroded both sides of the equation. A load of money was raised in the IPO and at excessive cost, but very little of it seems to have benefited the club and indeed is still bleeding us via onerous contracts to reward the original investors. The merry-go-round of board members who fail the club but are given excessive wages, bonuses and payoffs as well as legal costs for them suing us, has been incredibly damaging with little in return. On the income side, we don't seem to be able to negotiate a decent deal for the likes of sponsorship or merchandising, which combined used to bring in about as much as our current turnover. Indeed, for a club with a support originally buying into a revival, there seems to be very little of a potential £5m a year profit paid to the club. The latest contract seems to effectively be £0 and 0% in favour of the club. It seems we need to pay back loans and are desperately trying to attract a £3m share issue to do so, while we have a major shareholder who owes us something like £2.7m for merchandising but which somehow he doesn't have to and doesn't want to pay. The whole financial side is just a mess, but when looked at from the point of view of greed for those at the trough, it's been very successful for them. And that's the crux of it - a lot of the real goals have been achieved. I think they believed they could pull the wool over our eyes and milk it for a lot longer in the top tier, but it seems like many fans have shown they won't be duped and put the brakes on the gravy train. Something has to come to a head soon and you have to hope that some of the investors have seen the end of line and want to pull out while they are still well in profit. That could also force other hedge funds to pull out and limit their losses. Unfortunately, there only seems to be one man who can make this happen if the situation arises, so we are dependent on how he wants to play the game, and if he wants to miss a turn, there is nothing we can do.
  23. calscot
    I constantly get the impression you are still at school. Man up FFS.
  24. calscot
    All that says for you is "Epic fail".
  25. calscot
    The master of debate strikes again...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.